- 2 Posts
- 69 Comments
Why wouldn’t they? What do they have to lose in such a federation? One may argue, as OP did, that they would want to spread their ideas to new publics, without being too afraid of losing their own.
Hence my question on whether they made any statement about not wanting to federate with leftist instances.
I get your point that their core ideology is nauseating and incompatible with any form of leftism. I’m also not saying anything along the lines of federating with them being any good.
Bakchodi.org […] will never federate with leftist instances.
Can you link any such statement?
They often won’t defederate from you and get butthurt when you defederate from them.
This behaviour is well explained by their desire to fight for “absolute free speech”, so it does not require the extra assumption that their intention is to gather attention.
On mastodon they’ll even do campaigns where they send suicide promoting dms with gore in them to lgbt people.
Even this one can be seen as overcompensating for the “pro-LGBT censure”. While the ideology itself does not justify making these campaigns, it depicts censoring them as even worse.
Not saying they are right in any way, just that the core of the problem you describe is their ideology of absolute free speech, rather than it being misrepresented by attention-seeking individuals.
So while a communist could go to wolfballs and make posts, they won’t be moderated by staff but they will of course be in a sea of unpopularity due to the strong community bias shaped by both the site’s administration and community.
I am not sure I understand the difference with lemmy.ml. Do you have examples of people banned (edit : or post removed) because of their political alignment ? (I mean beyond the “no bigotry” rule)
Nice analysis !
From what I understand about the “lib right” instances, I would not say they don’t have a politically biased administration. Individual freedom is fundamentally a liberal/libertarian value. In the case of wolfballs, their sidebar is very explicit about the admin’s political opinions :
- the capitol riot picture
- refer to an explicitly liberal definition of tolerance
- opinions on gender
How do you define a women A women is defined as x chromosomes and no tallywhacker i.e probably not you
wolfballs maintains that God made all man kind equal in his eyes. Man and women. There is nothing in between either.
- antivax links
In addition to the biases that set instances apart, it is probably useful to mention that users of decentralised media will have a tendency to be more anti-corporate and/or privacy enthousiast, which is also probably why socialists and libertarians are more present here than soc-dems and liberals. Plus, as you said, being less mainstream platforms, they often have to face the arrival of banned users from other sites.
I think it is interesting to compare the recurrent migrations of banned Reddit users to Lemmy with last month’s massive influx to Mastodon following the latest Elongate. I wonder how things will play out when a zillionaire offers to buy Reddit.
About stats, what happened in early 2021?
User feedback about Friendica
I can follow Lemmy groups from my Friendica account. I am able to follow Lemmy communities and get updates from them. I am able to write comments but they do not appear on Lemmy.
Actually, I was only meaning use it internally to improve their own workflow.
They can still bundle it with other things, only release your code, secretly improving only what they did on top of your API and make money out of the bundle, so why stoppping there and using a free license rather than something with a NC clause?
On the other hand, one could argue that GPL would refrain a corp from including your software in their product, while at least the cite you get with the MIT license at least gets you some advertisement and potential contirbutors.
What if other free software developers use a license incompatible with the GPL for their own reason, is it OK to deprive them from the right to simply incorporate your code in the name of fighting big tech?
I don’t mean to say that it does not make sense to use the GPL, it is probably the most sensible choice if your aim is to fight big tech corporations. But not every piece of software is written as a commercial weapon.
Wouldn’t “an evil company could use your product to make money” be an argument to never release anything for free?
Indeed, copyleft is not enough to guarantee that corporations won’t make money with your code. Without modifying the code, an evil company could increase its profit just by using your software. So maybe the software should not be free but contain some clause that restricts to non-commercial use only? Maybe throw in some antifascist clause so that fascists groups cannot use your program to increase their efficiency in recruiting more members? Since evil people don’t care about the law, maybe you should only distribute your software to people that you have personnally vetted? Add-in some cryptology so that they cannot distribute it to evil people themselves?
This never stops, it’s the usual question of freedom vs security. Permissive licences are the ones who lie at the freedom-most part of the spectrum.
But mostly, this discussion about copyleft has nothing to do with the post.
Browsing FOSS reddit alternatives on AlternativeTo
What do you mean by “run”? A gouvernment should fund universities and research institutes who conduct such experiments. I am not opposed to the government having a say in which lines of research to fund in priority depending on what their political project. For example some grant dedicated to energy sources more carbon friendly. But the government should not be more specific topic-wise or method-wise, and should instead rely on panels of experts for questions such as which line of research looks promising enough to put in more gov money.